MABRB vs State of Maharashtra, 2025
It was reaffirmed that POCSO is a social legislation, aimed at protecting children, and cannot be circumvented through marriage customs.
Judgement Details
Court
Bombay High Court
Date of Decision
26 September 2025
Judges
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nandesh Deshpande
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
A minor girl (under 18) fell in love with a 29-year-old man.
-
Both families consented to the marriage, which was solemnized on June 2, 2024, as per Muslim rites.
-
The girl later gave birth to a child while still under 18.
-
An FIR was lodged against the man and his parents under POCSO and child marriage laws.
-
The accused moved the High Court seeking to quash the FIR.
Issues
-
Can a minor girl’s consent and subsequent marriage negate the offence under the POCSO Act?
-
Whether birth of a child with consent and marriage justifies quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC?
-
Is consensual physical relationship with a minor legal under Muslim personal law?
Held
-
The court ruled that the accused committed an offence under POCSO by engaging in a relationship with a minor.
-
The accused should have waited until she turned 18.
-
The court emphasized that personal or religious customs do not override statutory law like the POCSO Act.
Analysis
-
The court relied on the SC’s observations in the suo motu case Right to Privacy of Adolescents, Suo Motu WP (C) No.3/2023.
-
It noted the Union Government’s opposition to lowering the age of consent.
-
It was reaffirmed that POCSO is a social legislation, aimed at protecting children, and cannot be circumvented through marriage customs.
-
The Court highlighted that justice must be done according to law, not sentiments or individual situations.